• You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up

Protip: If you're not Plantbrain, stop posting like you are

Okay. But I'm really not trolling anyone and I really do care about this hobby and gardening.

If anyone wants to discuss that, we should. If you are only seeing a complaint and not ideas how to progress, let's not discuss it because that will make it cooler for everyone.

I'm checking in here and APC if anyone would like.
 
Maybe the problem is there's not a lot new left in the world, let alone this hobby ;) personally I'm thankful for the newbie bashings I took when I joined ukaps, generally they were polite and informative and money saving In the long run. Plantbrain as you state has a wealth of knowledge and I'd personally be glad to have this passed on first second or third hand, rather than the costly advice you generally receive at lfs. Long rein the parrot fashion posters :)
 
Great post. And you're right: Tom's influence has been huge. Maybe the hugest.

A thought though: what if there is a lot new left? I started out into the chemistry and then got into a cool sump/reverse refugium thing that some folks may remember and then got into this crazy sunlit paludarium thing. All were cool tanks but applied old/forgotten lessons. Old is the new new ;)

I recall a poster who programmed a iPhone calc off mine that is now doing arduino programming and is one of the leaders in DIY light meters.

I recall AaronT knowing tons about chemistry and nutrition and leading the way with soil.

It's different for different people. That's all I'm saying. It's our responsibility as experienced gardeners to *answer the original question* even when that involves math and chemistry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tim
Hey Michael W,

Yes we should dwell on how. Otherwise we're not really understanding our gardens.

But I acknowledge really that some folks do not care how :) I am hoping folks ack that other do.
 
wet said:
It's our responsibility as experienced gardeners to *answer the original question* even when that involves math and chemistry.
Click to expand...

The thing is though perhaps some of us can't give these exact maths and chemistry to back up our explanations and the way we work with this hobby but does this mean we're wrong? Not necessarily. I understand some people want to develop their knowledge and understand the technical side of things. I myself can't explain certain things to the extent of Tom, Clive, Darrel and other experienced members of the forum but I can offer experience and my methods which has worked for me. Could this not be foundations for the member who proposed a question to look into why the method worked and therefore come to a conclusion themselves?

Yes there is nothing wrong with working maths and chemistry into answers but you must understand that this is a hobby after all, and giving numbers etc may create a fun hobby into something more complicated. Instead why not offer the fundamental ideas which will allow success and progress. Once these are achieved the maths and chemistry will come naturally as one tries to experiment with different ideas and looking why X works but Y fails comparing differences.

P.S Sorry what I had meant was "how" the information comes across to you as in tones/attitudes, not "how" certain things happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tim
wet said:
Great post. And you're right: Tom's influence has been huge. Maybe the hugest.

A thought though: what if there is a lot new left? I started out into the chemistry and then got into a cool sump/reverse refugium thing that some folks may remember and then got into this crazy sunlit paludarium thing. All were cool tanks but applied old/forgotten lessons. Old is the new new ;)

I recall a poster who programmed a iPhone calc off mine that is now doing arduino programming and is one of the leaders in DIY light meters.

I recall AaronT knowing tons about chemistry and nutrition and leading the way with soil.

It's different for different people. That's all I'm saying. It's our responsibility as experienced gardeners to *answer the original question* even when that involves math and chemistry.
Click to expand...
I agree, and I think tom is the main advocate of hobbyists questioning methods/ approaches and not just being sheep so to speak, unfortunately I think people misconstrued your first post and thought you were here to bash ukaps, hopefully members will realise that isn't your intention and you'll have some good discussions, me I'm rubbish at maths :lol:
 
Hey Michael. I agree with most of that. My distinction is when someone asks a specific chemistry/math problem in the title with a very well thought out post with example calculations. Telling that person it doesn't matter is a different case than "what do I put into my tank to grow plants," you know?

We should definitely help both those types of gardeners, I agree fully!
 
ok I feel as though I know where you are coming from now, as Tim has said I was perhaps misguided from your first post.

I do feel great that you have posted this thread though as I believe through talking people can come to an understand of each other not just in this case but outside of this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tim
Yeah my bad. I'm kind of used to just posting stuff like that on planted forums, but forgot I'd been away from forums for a while. It's been such a bum out reading certain forums though, you guys.

Love you.
 
Wet, I'm guessing you are coming to this forum a bit jaded, honestly most people or "folks" on here are simple folks who enjoy the hobby for the simple pleasures it brings. We don't get very political and are generally a humble bunch of folk. we get a bit confused from time to time but generally advance our understanding, most on here reckon phosphates are a good thing, etc. We don't spend much time procrastinating unless its about a new filter purchase or making a move to LED lights. Overall we get a bit baffled by folks that take on the world via forum posts that don't seem to be based on plant growth, like I say we are simple folks
 
BigTom said:
With all due respect to Wet, the original post does come across as a bit of a rant, and it's taken us until page 2 to figure out what the thread is actually supposed to be about (I think, I'm still not entirely sure!).

A less antagonistic and more focused post might have been preferable....
Click to expand...


I might have something to contribute also...but TBH I'm still not entirely sure exactly what's being discussed either:confused:...

...and what's an echo chambero_O
 
  • Like
Reactions: tim
I'm saying math and chemistry threads and folks experimenting with stuff and breaking current rules is good when paired with best practices (because EI does not encompass best practices, of course).

It's okay to be wrong. It's fun to try and understand why we fail. That's what gardeners do, I think, and nutrients/CO2 (after initial investment) costs *pennies*. LED lights and pumps and stuff that plants don't eat cost many many many more pennies.
 
There is so much to learn that any tidbit of information given is like gold dust.

I create a thread, Clive, Tom or many of the other experts here come along and say point blank what I am doing is wrong, hell yes, I will appreciate that they had taken the time to actually said something.

Quick, to the point, simple and easy to follow, that is what we need, not hand holding and cotton wool.

I don't want to follow the advice? Suffer pain instead. :)
 
Troi said:
I might have something to contribute also...but TBH I'm still not entirely sure exactly what's being discussed either:confused:...

...and what's an echo chambero_O
Click to expand...

I've read it, and re-read it and I'm not sure it makes a whole lot of sense.

What I can gather is that the OP is a MASSIVE fan of Tom Barr.

Maybe I'm being thick but like Alistair said earlier in the thread, basically unless you are TB don't bother?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top